"House Rules" essential for game balance?

[Green Giant]

Hey,

I am looking to start a MP game but this is my first time getting one together. I want a game where the players are fairly free to do what they want so what are the house rules that are pretty essential to keep the game balanced?

Thanks.

 

[Kyril]

Hi GG.

If you want to have a balanced game of MP, I think the first thing is to limmit the possible entry date of the US to the war. The US can easily swing the balance to Allied side if it joins early. You might also want to look at the way the MR-Pact is dealt with. If Germany refuses the pact, the SU gets screwed over immensily.

To have an example of some rulesets used in MP gaming, feel free to look at http://xsorbit25.com/users5/hoiplayers/index.php. In the game thread you'll find some examples.

 

[unmerged(14249)]

The only house rule that my group is really keen on is "no whining". It's a game and so some players will do better than others. Churchill's slogan of "blood, sweat and tears" is the right attitude - you need to be stoic to enjoy playing some countries like Italy or France. The point of playing is to enjoy the experience rather than to get a particular result.

Andrew

 

[jonnyincognito]

If you are going for an 'open game', or as most would call it here, ahistorical, then house rules are probably a no no for the most part. Limiting countries like the US from joining early (on EITHER side!) or Germany from screwing the USSR with the MR pact would hinder your ability to have an open game. No whining would be a good one though Also, you might want to add one that says if you are defeated or puppeted, the player that was defeated/puppeted could take control of a different country if he/she wishes to continue playing. This way, they won't be out of the game even if they just lost the war Open games are the most interesting and entertaining...and at the same time, frustrating...one's I've played. It's all I like!


Joshua

 

[unmerged(34884)]

Yeah i like that rule about not whining....

I think rules to make the game more balanced are fair and let everyone play the game in a good way. I think you shouldnt make too many rules cause it makes the game predictable and boring.

In short just have some rules to stop an easy victory of either side and for the rest just no whining sounds good to me

 

[Kyril]

The rule of 'no whining' is definately necessary, if just to prevent people from quiting when things are not going their way, or avoid nasty, distracting discussions during gameplay.

I do however find some houserules necessary for a good game. The game mechanics allow for a very decent degree of choice, however some of these choices upset the game balance a lot.

To give an example: the UK can easily get Rep. Spain into the Allies, getting into war with Nat. Spain, and get rid of their peacetime modifier halfway '36 that way.
Another example would be influencing the US to Interventionist, get them in Allies in '38 (best thing I managed testing this in 1.2), and ruin any chance for Germany to even get Vichy to fire.

Ideally, you could start a game with the only rules 'no whining and no exploits', but in practise I ended up getting into discussion with people during game to what is considered an exploit, which is in clear violation of rule 1.'no whining'...

 

[unmerged(34884)]

Yea agree you have to state before the game what is seen as an exploit or not. Every game i played there always has been some discussion over this, and its annoying. So having those rules definetly help to keep the whining to a minimum and so that everyone knows what is allowed and not.